A federal court has decided that an insured was not entitled to have his case against his insurer remanded to state court even if his case was valued at $74,723.19 – $277 short of the $75,000 amount in controversy for federal court diversity jurisdiction.
The Case
Roger Ulloa alleged that Integon National Insurance Company failed to fully pay for the damage to his property caused by Hurricane Irma. Mr. Ulloa sued Integon in a Florida state court, alleging breach of contract with the amount in controversy exceeding $15,000. Mr. Ulloa's complaint provided a damage estimate as an exhibit in the amount of $73,963.19.
Integon removed the case to federal court on the basis that Mr. Ulloa's pre-suit estimate and proof of loss was for $100,709.34.
Mr. Ulloa moved to remand. He pointed out that he had provided a precise damages estimate of $73,963.19 and suggested that his pre-suit demand, to the extent it should be considered at all, was nothing more than “puffing and posturing” rather than a reasonable assessment of the value of his claim.
For its part, Integon asserted that, because Mr. Ulloa had sworn under oath that his expected loss exceeded $75,000, his action exceeded the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction and Mr. Ulloa's motion to remand had to be denied.
The Court's Decision
The court decided that Mr. Ulloa's motion to remand should be denied.
In its decision, the court ruled that Integon had met its burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
The court pointed out that, in the sworn proof of loss form, Mr. Ulloa claimed that his damages were $100,709.34 and that he had not sworn to his revised estimate of $73,963.19. The proof of loss form was “more credible,” according to the court, because Mr. Ulloa signed it under penalty of perjury.
The court observed that the proof of loss form did not definitively mean that Mr. Ulloa would absolutely recover a minimum of $75,000, but it decided that Integon had met its burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy requirement was met.
The court concluded that if one ignored the sworn proof of loss form but added the value of Mr. Ulloa's attorneys' fees at the time of removal, which the court determined were at least $760, Mr. Ulloa's damages were at least $74,723.19 – that is, $277 short of the amount in controversy.
The court concluded that, when viewed through a lens that Mr. Ulloa's damages were at least $74,723 and that Integon based its removal on a sworn piece of evidence that Mr. Ulloa attested to in valuing the damages in his case, Integon had established by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Ulloa's case was valued at more than $75,000.
The case is Ulloa v. Integon National Ins. Co., No. 18-23069-Civ-WILLIAMS/TORRES (S.D. Fla. Oct. 10, 2018). Attorneys involved include: For Roger B. Ulloa, Plaintiff: Ramon Julio Diego, LEAD ATTORNEY, Law Office of Ramon J. Diego, P.A., Miami, FL. For Integon National Insurance Company, Defendant: Ana Laura Olman, LEAD ATTORNEY, Keller Landsberg, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, FL; Katie Drozd, LEAD ATTORNEY, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
Steven A. Meyerowitz
Steven A. Meyerowitz, a Harvard Law School graduate, is the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company. He may be contacted at [email protected].